Three Halloween Horrors For Barack Obama

For once it’s Barack Obama frightened by horrible news, not the usual Obama horrifies America.

Barack Obama woke up this morning and had two big scares. First he read that a judge had issued a restricted movement order against a nurse in Maine who has dealt with Ebola patients. Video: Maine judge orders Hickox to restrict her movements). Barack was not so scared that this was yet another repudiation of his policies. Something else haunted him.

The judge banned the churlish nurse from public places which scared the bats out of Obama’s belfry. Barack figured, “If they quarantine this nurse, am I next? After all people are calling me “Ebola Obama” because I am political death. No more of the public rallies I crave.” This kept Barack awake and thanking his volcano gods that at least he did not have to look at Michelle now that they have separate beds.

What happens when your friend’s smartphone can tell that you’re lying [snip]

Moodies, an app developed by Beyond Verbal, is able to detect a speaker’s mood based on nothing more than a voice. Worldwide call centers are testing the technology to help operators determine whether callers are upset and likely to switch their business to a competitor. [snip]

One thing is for sure: politics is in for a major overhaul. With every smartphone possessing a virtual lie-detector test, elected officials will need to be creative in the ways they talk to us. In fact, my fear is the most insecure and most powerful politicians will resist, and quickly seek to regulate or restrict these technologies — ignoring their obvious good — in a hidden but discoverable attempt to preserve their own power and half-truths.

A Barack Obama that is unable to lie is a Barack Obama that cannot breathe. A smartphone lie detector would be very much as if everyone had a Big Pink website about to detect every Obama lie. That is a real Obama Halloween Horror.

President Barack Obama is about to do what no president has done in the past 50 years: Have two horrible, terrible, awful midterm elections in a row.

In fact, Obama is likely to have the worst midterm numbers of any two-term president going back to Democrat Harry S. Truman. [snip]

Obama had one midterm where his party lost 63 House seats, and Democrats are expected to lose another 5 to possibly 12 House seats (or more), taking the sitting president’s total midterm House loses to the 68 seat to 75 seat range.

Most recent presidents have one disastrous midterm and another midterm that was not terrible. [snip]

Democrats lost 6 Senate seats in 2010 and seem likely to lose from 5 to as many as 10 seats next week. That would add up to Obama midterm Senate losses of from 11 seats to as many as 16 seats.

Admin: I see in the text of the article you linked above that Jay Cost is doing something he has not done before nearly so explicitly: he is channeling you and everything you have been saying with respect to the Texiara crap.

(P.S. If we can talk about this privately at some point, you may have a cause of action for copyright infringement.)
—————————————–
“There are no permanent majorities in American politics. For over a decade, Democrats have been salivating at the prospect of demographic changes propelling them to permanent majority status. Obama in particular has been active on this front, and has ruthlessly divided the country along race, gender, and class lines in the hope of speeding this process along. But he has overlooked two historical realities.”

The end of the Age of Obama. It began with high hopes on a winter’s night in Iowa in 2008 and ended in disappointment on a crisp fall day nearly seven years later.

Sure, the president has another two years in office, but he is now the lamest of lame ducks. He is soon to face a House majority that is one of the most Republican since the 1920s, and a Senate, we hope, about to be taken over by a Republican majority. But more than this, he seems to have no friends, and few allies, on Capitol Hill.

One fact of politics that the president never fully grasped is that Congress, not the White House, is the center of our political system. Sure, the president lives in a fancy house, enjoys a full-time chef, and has “Hail to the Chief” played when he enters a room. But Congress is—as Stanford’s Morris Fiorina once put it—“the keystone of the Washington establishment.” The Framers gave pride of place to Congress, making it Article I of the Constitution, and were so worried about its potential power they divided it into two. Ideally, the modern president can use his prestige and acumen to lead Congress, but Obama has fallen far from that ideal. He has treated Congress in a supercilious manner, burned his bridges with Republican leaders, and alienated even Democrats.

With nobody to call on Capitol Hill, the president will have lots of free time over the next two years. He might use some of it to ponder this truth: There are no permanent majorities in American politics. For over a decade, Democrats have been salivating at the prospect of demographic changes propelling them to permanent majority status. Obama in particular has been active on this front, and has ruthlessly divided the country along race, gender, and class lines in the hope of speeding this process along. But he has overlooked two historical realities.

First, demographic change has been part and parcel of the American political landscape since the Founding, and yet the parties adapt. [snip]

Second, despite our political class’s pretensions to power, they remain mere pawns in a broader game designed by James Madison. Madison wanted a large republic precisely so demagogues could never build a fractious majority, as has been President Obama’s clear ambition. [snip]

We are seeing this play out right now. Obama’s coalition in 2008 was relatively large—at 53 percent of the vote—but unstable. In a country as vast and diverse as ours, all such coalitions are bound to be unstable. And what we have seen is Republicans poach a critical mass of the Obama vote away, in 2010 and likely in 2014, to foil his agenda. Just as Madison might have expected.

It is well known that this president likes to golf and watch hipster favorites like Game of Thrones, so he probably is too busy to read dusty old books about men who lived long ago. But those who aspire to succeed this sterling mediocrity in the White House would do well to spend their free time a little differently.

First, demographic change has been part and parcel of the American political landscape since the Founding, and yet the parties adapt. We can go back to the Federalist/Jeffersonian divide of earliest days. The latter enjoyed a demographic edge for a time because of the fast expansion of the West, but the old Federalist ideology eventually became the backbone of the Whigs, who were competitive against the Jacksonians. Federalism and antislavery then inspired the Republicans. So demography “doomed” the ideas of the Federalists, until of course a homespun Illinoisan named Abraham Lincoln united the whole North around a reworked version of their economic program. More recently, consider: In 1928 it was the Catholic vote that flipped Massachusetts from Republican to Democrat. In 2004 a majority of white Massachusetts Catholics gave their vote to George W. Bush, a Methodist from Texas, over John Kerry, a Catholic from Massachusetts.

Second, despite our political class’s pretensions to power, they remain mere pawns in a broader game designed by James Madison. Madison wanted a large republic precisely so demagogues could never build a fractious majority, as has been President Obama’s clear ambition. A society that covers a large space with many people actually makes it harder to do what this president has so long wanted. Per Madison: “Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other.”

We are seeing this play out right now. Obama’s coalition in 2008 was relatively large—at 53 percent of the vote—but unstable. In a country as vast and diverse as ours, all such coalitions are bound to be unstable. And what we have seen is Republicans poach a critical mass of the Obama vote away, in 2010 and likely in 2014, to foil his agenda. Just as Madison might have expected.

Second, despite our political class’s pretensions to power, they remain mere pawns in a broader game designed by James Madison. Madison wanted a large republic precisely so demagogues could never build a fractious majority, as has been President Obama’s clear ambition.
—————-
That is so true.

Madison, the confidante of Washington was, is and will always be our greatest lawyer.

I agree , but I am not counting my chickens before they come home to roost. The only joy in the republicans possibly taking over the Senate is the humiliation Obama and the dems will face. The democratic and republicans have essentially become one in the same , particularly the parties leaders whose main goal is to stay the course and maintain power for the perks, not the people.

Admin: let me just say that your insights into Obama and what he would do to this nation and how big media would react and how the country would react when they finally caught on have been remarkably accurate. And so has your advice to Hillary. Your crystal ball has been the clearest of all, and suffused with political wisdom and insight second to none. Very impressive.

I understand that plans are underway to build an Obama presidential library to commemorate his eight glorious years as our first black president.

Above the entrance to that Potemkin Village establishment girded with Corinthian columns of Styrofoam a plaque should be hung, as follows”

“Of Barack Hussein Obama, often referred to as “The Messiah” by big media, it is best said that he was demagogue who ruthlessly divided the nation by race, gender and social class, and left the “folks” far worse off than when he got there.”

In the meantime, efforts to carve his likeness out of the bare rock of Mount Rushmore have been placed on indefinite hold, pending funding from the princes of Saudi Arabia, who have turned their attention from fomenting revolution in the United States to doing so in their own neck of the woods–er, I mean desert.

CNN is also trying to get more objective with their polling now that the end is near. Keating Holland has always been a phony pollster and a whore. When they ask him what is 2+2? his answer is what would you like it to be?

Every effort by big media to jump to the other side must be blocked by a showing of how they aided and abetted Obama in earlier times. It is like that line in the night of the Generals where a German policeman portrayed by Omar Shariff wryly observes that the Wermacht generals were all in favor of the war while we were winning whereas now they are losing they are anxious to save their scalps by plotting against Hitler. That is where big media is right now.

Well Frank Luntz on Fox just poured cold water out … saying his polling leads him to believe the GOTV for Democrats is way better than Repubs and that the Georgia early vote and GOTV is near Presidential.

Don’t know what to think other than I’m really surprised that even AA would “get his back” because the illegal aliens are aiming at their demographic for jobs, housing, etc. But I guess they believe that the obamaphone is for eternity as well as their check as long as the obummer stays in power and his cronies,.

I noticed a headline by a black writer at HuffPo suggesting that the loss of the senate and the demise of Obama will sink black America.

Question: was black America better off before Obama or after Obama? I do not mean just the financial collapse, I mean the 10 years that preceded it, which includes the Clinton years. And today, with 92 million Americans of working age not working, is it fair to say that black America is better off under Obama. Is black America better off when their leaders are the likes of Al Sharpton? Can a race baiter like him offer then a hopeful path forward.

Comment: this black writer is not concerned about the welfare of black America. He is concerned about his own welfare, and future if the country diregards the flawed advice of people like him. If he is on the level then he needs to find a black leader who unlike Obama is a man of principle. If he is truly interested in the future of black America then he will support the candidacy of Ben Carson, as I will if Hillary does not run. Trust me, he won’t.

dot48
October 31, 2014 at 4:42 pm
————-
I have been skeptical that the senate will change hands, until fairly recently. Now, with the momentum moving as it is I think it will happen. But I do see two losses of Republican seats in Kentucky and Kansas as a distinct possibility and other states like Georgia, North Carolina and Louisiana where neither candidate receives a 50% majority, such that the cheating could become an outcome determinative issue. If the happens, I see nothing but trouble ahead.

Wall Street has the most sophisticated models for predicting the future, and they do not bet on a losing proposition–except for an occasional pump and dump, but they never bet with their own money on a loser.

wbboei
October 31, 2014 at 3:29 pm
Admin: let me just say that your insights into Obama and what he would do to this nation and how big media would react and how the country would react when they finally caught on have been remarkably accurate. And so has your advice to Hillary. Your crystal ball has been the clearest of all, and suffused with political wisdom and insight second to none. Very impressive.

___________

wbb, I second that!!

First the NY Times, now CNN is disgusted with race baiting. They’re throwing snowballs in hell today!!

The jude’s decision is that she not be isolated, but she is restricted and monitored.
————————————————
I don’t read it that way. Here’s an excerpt:

“FORT KENT, Maine (AP) — Kaci Hickox is free to travel unrestricted after a Maine judge on Friday rejected the state’s bid to limit her movements as a medical worker who has treated Ebola patients.
Judge Charles C. LaVerdiere ruled Hickox must continue daily monitoring and coordinate travel with state health officials to ensure continuity of monitoring. The judge said there’s no need to restrict her movements because she’s not infectious because she’s showing no symptoms.
With the judge’s ruling, a state police cruiser parked outside her home drove away.”

The reason it would be great for Cruz is it would expose what Pat Caddell is talking about, namely the abject failure of the RINO’ to nationalize the election, to articulate a clear cogent and convincing vision of the future which the country could buy into, and to implement an effective ground game after calling their own base racist and paying they walk around money to black democrats to vote for the RINO. By all that’s right, this should be a wave election. But the electorate it seems hates Obama, believes the country is on the right track, but do not want to reward the Republicans. It is called cognitive dissonance.

For some weeks now on our Fox News show “Political Insiders,” I have been expressing my concern that if we look at the polls, we seem to have two elections going on.

With only days to go before the midterm elections we continue to see a true anomaly which is a strong national position for the Republicans nationally and yet a host of very close elections for dozens of key races in the Senate, House and for governor.

Despite millions of dollars spent on scorched earth negative television advertising, from both parties, the electorate seems strangely detached and disengaged from it all.

Even if you credit the Democrats with running superior tactical campaigns in individual races — which is quite disputable — what still is baffling is why such a massive national mood is not being translated into an at least the traditional “throw the bums out” groundswell.

Frustrated, angry and scared as hell as American voters may be they just don’t seem to be that engaged with the current campaign compared to past elections. And perhaps why should they be?

Record numbers of Americans say the U.S. is in actual decline, that their children, the next generation will be worse off than our current generation, worse off than their parents and the majority who feel that even if you play by the rules and work hard, ordinary Americans can’t get ahead. These historic negative sentiments are fueling an environment of concern, apprehension and even fear. — Even if almost no one running dares to mention them.

However, in the key individual races in states every campaign seems only tearing down an opponent and almost none of the candidates from either party are offering real visions for how to revitalize America.

Yet, at the national level the picture could not be brighter for the Republican Party.

President Obama has been getting very low job approval numbers for some time. And opposition to his handling of various policies has become almost all negative. Huge majorities of voters believe the country is off track and going in the wrong direction.

The Obama administration has been beset by a series of political sinkholes. Leaving aside the long-simmering opposition to ObamaCare, and scandals like Benghazi, the IRS and Fast and Furious, in recent months we have had one disaster after another: Starting with the VA crisis where incompetence and indifference has led to the inability of our veterans to not only not get the health services they’re due but even resulting in deaths.

The overwhelming of our southern border by unaccompanied immigrant children, which was not only a humanitarian disaster but has reinforced the belief among voters that the U.S. cannot control its borders.

The crisis in the Ukraine, where Russian President Putin has clearly read Obama’s weakness as an invitation for his annexing of the Crimea and his de facto invasion of Eastern Ukraine.

Then there’s the Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl exchange which, despite laws to the contrary, saw the U.S. trade a soldier, whose conduct on the battlefield was questionable to say the least, being hailed as a hero by the Obama administration, and traded for four top Taliban terrorist leaders. Now the investigation into the prisoner exchange and Bergdahl’s conduct while serving in the military has been put on ice until after the election.

But wait, there’s still more. There’s the rise of ISIS and its sweep across Iraq, parts of Syria and the absolute breakdown of the Iraqi army to oppose it. For the first time we have a terrorist army occupying territory larger than the country of Belgium and routinely massacring, crucifying and raping the people whom it is occupying. And to that the strategy and action of the United States in response has been dubious in the eyes of most Americans. And now we have lone wolf attacks by terrorists in Canada and possibly in New York.

Finally, we have the handling of the Ebola crisis by the Obama administration which has come as its own October surprise.

Indeed there have been so many crises that have come so quickly, one on top of another, that it is understandable that it’s hard for voters to keep track of them all.

With all of this, as well as an economy that most Americans feel still is not benefiting them, history will tell us that voter sentiment should be favoring a landslide on behalf of the opposition party. Indeed, most but not all of the national polls seem to be breaking strongly for Republicans in the generic vote making the prospect of a landslide very real.

And yet, the opposition party, the GOP has not been able to lock down victories in Senate races even in red states. In race after race the polls tell us, heading into an election in 4 days, that the races still are too close to call.

What’s going on?

I’m not sure anyone really knows the answer to this question but I want to offer some possible reasons.

1. As much as voters might want to chastise the president and the Democratic Party it’s unclear that they are unhappy with rewarding the Republican Party whose brand has been highly negative since 2012.

2. Surprisingly, for most of the two year cycle since 2012, the Dems — at all levels — have been outraising the Republican Party by large margins. And they also seem to have had at least a semi-coordination of message even if it has not been particularly illuminating.

3. Of course, to this must be added, the overall alienation, cynicism and anger of a vast majority of voters towards the political class in Washington and what they feel is a government which no longer works for them. Which may explain why independent and third party candidates are doing better than ever and may be the decisive factor in many races.

Even if you credit the Democrats with running superior tactical campaigns in individual races — which is quite disputable — what still is baffling is why such a massive national mood is not being translated into an at least the traditional “throw the bums out” groundswell.

I think part of the answer lies in the failure of the leadership of the Republican Party — and its allies — to provide even a semblance of a positive message and secondly a failure to nationalize the 2014 campaign with a national campaign.

In 1994, the image remains of every Republican candidate running for Congress and the Senate standing together on the steps of the Capitol with their “Contract for America.”

In truth, no voters really knew what the Contract with American was, but there was at least the sense that Republicans were uniting around some kind of alternatives to the Clinton policies and were standing for real change.

Since the election in 2012, my colleagues and I on “Political Insiders,” have hammered away at the need for Republicans to put forth some kind of vision of what they would do to change the direction of America. And nothing has come. The country still waits.

Having abandoned a strategy of offering a party-wide positive vision the national Republican leadership has eschewed any kind of nationwide campaign message. Instead, more and more money and tens of thousands of political spots are being dumped onto voters in well less than half of the 50 states.

If you want to have a referendum election on the president, which all the evidence suggests would offer much promise, you could imagine the message as quite simple: how about national advertising which took the president’s own statement about his policies being on the ballot and featuring either specific policies or even a montage reminding voters of all the terrible things they feel and ending with this, “if you don’t like these policies, then send Barack Obama the message: vote Republican.”

As the Fox News poll has been asking, if the president’ policies were on the ballot, would you vote for them or against them, and the results have been consistently around 36 percent in favor, 58 percent opposed, one might think that would be a sagacious strategy.

But the failure to run a national message campaign, with national advertising in 2014, while it may not be a fatal mistake is a disastrous failure of political imagination.

The benefits of running a national message/advertising campaign are several. First, as we know in big wave elections, there are races on election night across the country that are shocking upset winners in races across the country that almost no one predicted.

If your intention is to ignite a national tide wouldn’t you want to carry your national message not just in the states that you think are competitive but in places where you have candidates running who are under-funded and may not be on the radar screen?

In addition, it would provide a national framework around the individual contests being waged in states and districts. And believe it or not, it would be more efficient, less costly than to continuing to have to jam more ads into already oversaturated television markets in tight races.

It astounds me that the 2014 midterm election has not seen the utilization of a national campaign. Having a deserted the possibility of any positive platform the thematic imperative is crystal clear: SEND PRESIDENT OBAMA A MESSAGE — ENOUGH! As Marshall McLuhan famously said, “the medium is the message.”

For voters in this kind of an election, where the electorate is unhappy with everyone, why not go right to the heart of their dissatisfaction?

The reasons that the Republican Party doesn’t have the imagination to have overlaid a national campaign – everywhere — will remain a mystery.

Some will say it’s because the consultants will make far less money on national advertising than they do in the knockdown, drag out state advertising.

Some will say, “this is the way we always do it” which is definitely not true. Some will say, “this is the way it’s done and works.” And still others will say that the “stupid party” resembles nothing more than the World War I French and British constantly wasting their armies across no-man’s land, learning nothing from every defeat.

I leave it to the reader to make their own conclusions. However, one thing stands out. If the results on Tuesday night are a surprising large Republican landslide, this question will be left to aficionados. However, if the Republicans come up short in an election they should have won easily this year, this question should be at the forefront of why they did not succeed.

Patrick Caddell is a Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor. He served as pollster for President Jimmy Carter, Gary Hart, Joe Biden and others. He is a Fox News political analyst and co-host of “Political Insiders” Sundays on Fox News Channel and Mondays at 10:30 am ET on “FoxNews.com Live

Yes,..that is what we thought all along. Plus the conservative sites were getting to hot and heavy about victory and the dems used it to scare the base. Dems will easily hold on to Senate and as bitter a pill that is to swallow , it is a major victory for Obama on a personal level and very bad news for Hillary as pointed out above.

Shadow: I have that coffee table book on the 1915 Worlds Fair if you want it. You mentioned your grandfather helped build the buildings which were featured in that fair, and perhaps even the Palace of Fine Arts which as you know exists to this day. Mrs. Smith will send you my email address. I would be glad to send it if you want it.

This author has discovered a very accurate polling method, which he says has held up for a number of years. The methodology for this polling process: Dims will win more votes in counties that have more Whole Food Markets than Cracker Barrel Restaurants, while Republicans will win more votes in counties where the reverse is true.

He has tracked this back to Bill Clinton’s election in 1992 (Back when life made sense, and the Big Dawg was running the show). He won 61 % of the vote in the Whole Food Counties, and 40% of the vote in Cracker Barrel Counties.

The picture was quite different in 2008, when Barack was selected the Dim nominee. He won 35% in the Cracker Barrel counties and
80 % in the Whole Foods Counties.

(snip)

“Nationally, 44.8 percent of voters live in counties with a Cracker Barrel and 44.5 percent live in counties with a Whole Foods, roughly even. But in the average Senate battleground state (excluding Alaska, where neither chain has a location), 41.0 percent of voters live in counties with a Cracker Barrel and just 32.5 percent live in counties with a Whole Foods. That’s another indication that this year’s Senate races aren’t just playing out on Republican turf, they’re playing out on turf that’s trending towards Republicans over the long term.”

jbstonesfan
October 31, 2014 at 8:06 pm
——————-
Well, not easily, if at all.

One thing it will do is rip apart the Republican Party.

For me, the determining factor will be cheating.

If the win by cheating, no mandate exists.

That in turn will set off a whole range of behaviors inconsistent with a viable nation state.

The rule of law will be undermined.

A black market will develop and expand, as it has everywhere else a central economy has been attempted.

When they are done looting the middle class, so there is no middle class, the wealthy will be next.

The elites will try, as they have under Obama, pitting Americans against Americans and exploiting the fault lines of race gender and class.

Once that is done however they will find that they are victims of their own success, and cannon fodder for the next generation of left wing demagogues.

The marriage between uber capitalists and marxists is one of convenience. Not destined to last. Sooner or later, the capitalist faces the devil’s tooth. Just ask the money man behind Fidel–the late great Julio Lobo, aka Julius Wolf.

The thing I worry about is there does come a point where people simply give up. Some will argue that that is not in the American character, i.e. to give up. I would argue that it is not in the American experience because for the last 250 years we have consistently resisted Jacobin doctrine–from Robespierre to Lenin to Fidel. But now we have Obama and the American People have fallen for him not once but twice. That bodes ill for our national future, and our personal futures as well. The only difference is some people know this, but most do not. And when they do, they are apt to give up.

jbstonesfan
October 31, 2014 at 8:06 pm
————–
Perhaps we should file an action for partition and divide the nation between those who believe in America and those who believe in Obama, because a house divided cannot stand. In that case, I would be open to giving the bots that vast expanse of real estate mostly ocean around the Pribiloff Isands of Alaska, the North Slope and surrounding tundra regions, the Everglades, the Bayou, the Great Mohave Desert, and the nether regions of hell–just to be generous. We will keep the rest of the country for those who love it, and believe in its traditions. No need to fight any longer once that partition is implemented. They can raise the Obama logo and the hope and change mantra over their lands, mint their own currency, suspend elections, drive out all business, and let everybody there paint, use drugs and write for HuffPo.

Wbboei that Caddell article is good. Recall the article we published about women and how the Republicans should handle the “war on women”? We too said the message has to be a national one. On issue after issue Republicans failed to outline a national message.

Instead of a national message there was a sort of congealing message that does not have the appearance of unity – which the public wants. The public wants a coherent message from both parties.

The problem for the Republicans has been that they don’t have a “leader” in the way the Obama Dimocrats do. Of course having Ebola Obama as a national leader does not help. But if the national party would have taken even some simple steps, such as the one Caddell suggests (run an ad making it clear that this election is a referendum on Obama) it would have helped.

We thought our suggestion combined with the Caddell suggestion was also very good. Our suggestion was that the Republicans should have gone all out in advocating for over-the-counter sales of contraceptives and label Planned Parenthood as Planned Profithood over women.

Why wasn’t this done? Probably because of fear that a national campaign which made it clear that Obama was on the ballot would also bring out the Hopium guzzlers. As to the war on women counterattack we suggested maybe the Republicans saw how it was backfiring on Obama Dimocrats and they did not want to detract from the self-immolation (DrudgeReport indicates that the NYTimes will publish an article this weekend on the Obama Dimocrats second guessing themselves on whether they should have pushed so hard on the “war on women” over the economy).

But overall, unlike our esteemed resident pessimist from Florida who likes the Rolling Stones and issues wise words of caution, we think the Republicans are going to win the senate. We also think they will do very well in state and local races.

But we are concerned about the Republican ground game which literally fell apart in 2012 on election day. We are very worried about Colorado vote fraud (even as the reports all show that the Republicans are ahead in Colorado we would not be surprised if Obama Dimocrats are hoarding ballots until the last minute and then dump tons of filled in ballots they collected from the garbage, filled in, and voted for others. It would be voter fraud on a massive scale and no way to prove or prevent it because the Colorado law is so badly written.)

We also don’t like the race-baiting that might get out the black vote on the basis of lies and phony fear – it worked in 2012.

In either case there is a lot of good news for Tuesday which we will post.

DES MOINES, Iowa —Democrats’ hopes of keeping the Senate may well rest on the outcome of the race in this state on Tuesday. But party faithful here are increasingly anxious that victory is slipping away, with some Democrats openly saying that Republican Joni Ernst has the momentum as the campaign barrels to a close.

In conversations with more than a dozen voters and activists in seven cities across Iowa, Republicans appeared confident, even giddy, while Democrats acknowledged they were worried that Ernst would win an open-seat race that many in their party initially thought would be an easy victory for their candidate, Bruce Braley.

“I kind of think she has the momentum,” sighed Linda Osborn, 65, a staunch Democrat who was at a canvassing kick-off with Braley in Democratic Jasper County on his birthday this week.[snip]

And Democrats have brought in big guns like Hillary Clinton to give Braley a last-minute boost. Energy on the ground, as Mitt Romney learned in 2012, doesn’t always predict the final outcome.

But the pro-Ernst sentiment, for whatever it counts, is hard to miss.

Asked why the Republican state senator may be pulling ahead, voters and activists said that polls showing her ahead generate buzz about her viability; that the nation’s renewed focus on foreign policy could help Ernst, an Iraq war veteran and member of the National Guard; and that President Barack Obama’s sinking polls numbers could weigh down Braley.

Democrats also acknowledge that Ernst is simply running a solid campaign. [snip]

But Sarah Overton, a 30-year-old Democrat from the liberal Cedar Rapids area who brought her toddler to see Clinton and Braley on Wednesday, said she’s also seen evidence of a strong Ernst field operation. The Ernst campaign is showing up in places Republicans don’t usually go, she said.

In the final days, Braley has been skewering Ernst for declining to meet with several editorial boards of Iowa newspapers, including the Des Moines Register. Ernst insists that paper was never going to endorse her anyway. The issue stokes indignation among the Democratic base, which otherwise appears fired up about the national issues fueling most Democratic races this cycle: raising the minimum wage; equal pay for women; and support for women’s reproductive rights. Braley has sought to paint Ernst as particularly extreme on the last issue, betting that would make her unpalatable to independents.

Republicans, meanwhile, are aiming to tie Braley to Obama — though they seem less focused on that connection than in other competitive contests in the country. They are energized about Ernst on a personal level.

“It seems she has more of that flair,” said Jacob Swegle, a Republican and senior at Iowa State University. “Like what Barack Obama had in 2008,” in the presidential race.

Both Braley and Ernst are skilled retail politicians, and Braley is the smoother speaker on the stump. But even Democrats describe Ernst as warm and personable. Ernst, who is known for giving voters hugs and for her earnest exclamations — “Oh, heavens!” “Oh, my gosh!” “God bless you, OK?”— led one Republican woman in Ames to murmur to her friend, “She’s a doll.” [snip]

Ernst is running on the slogan of “mother, soldier, independent leader.” She appears to have benefited from the recent shift in national attention back to international affairs and is running as a vocal critic of Obama’s foreign policy while seeking to tie Braley to the administration. The crowds often responded with whoops and “thank yous” when she mentioned her military service, and her allies often mention she would be the first female combat veteran in the Senate, along with Iowa’s first woman in Congress. [snip]

Osborn, the canvasser who sees Ernst as having the momentum, said that in recent weeks Braley has been out with positive campaign ads, and she hopes that will push him over the finish line. But she worries that people who aren’t carefully following the issues will be swayed by Ernst’s presentation.

“I’d like to like her,” the Democrat said. “…She’s personable; farmer’s [daughter], in the National Guard. I think that carries a lot of weight. A lot of people admire the combination she’s got.”

Mitch McConnell widens lead over Alison Lundergan Grimes in final Bluegrass Poll

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has opened up a five-point lead over Democratic opponent Alison Lundergan Grimes and appears well positioned to win a sixth term, according to the final Bluegrass Poll before Tuesday’s election.

In a Bluegrass Poll released early last week, McConnell was clinging to a one-point lead, with 44 percent backing him and 43 percent choosing Grimes.

The latest poll of 597 likely voters in Kentucky was conducted by SurveyUSA between Oct. 25 and Oct. 29 on behalf of the Herald-Leader and WKYT-TV in Lexington and The Courier-Journal and WHAS-TV in Louisville. It has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.

With just five days to go until Election Day, McConnell has surged as Republican voters show increasing unity and President Barack Obama’s popularity hits a new low in the state.

“The Bluegrass Poll has been the one independent source indicating that Grimes might be on target to win this Senate race, so having the numbers turn against her is devastating news,” said Stephen Voss, a political science professor at the University of Kentucky.

After four Bluegrass Polls showed McConnell falling below 80 percent among likely Republican voters, the senator appears to be solidifying his base. Eighty-six percent now say they will vote for McConnell.

Poll respondent Terie Blankenbaker of Louisville said she had hoped Louisville businessman Matt Bevin would win the Republican primary in May, but she is voting for McConnell now because he has “typically” stood up to the president and his “liberal agenda.”

Grimes, on the other hand, continues to face problems within her own party. Only 71 percent of Democrats say they will support her and 23 percent say they will back McConnell.

Meanwhile, 27 percent of registered voters say they have a favorable view of Obama, whose policies on coal have cast a large shadow over Grimes throughout the race. Fifty-five percent have an unfavorable view of Obama, and those margins grow dramatically in the western and eastern parts of the state.

“President Obama is clearly the albatross hanging around Grimes‘ neck,” Voss said. “He is incredibly unpopular in Kentucky, and if anything, in the last several weeks attitudes toward him have only worsened.”

The poll shows McConnell leading among men and women — 48 percent to 43 percent among men and 47 percent to 43 percent among women.

Two of the biggest questions heading into Election Day are: “What will the electorate look like?” And: “How will these voters break?” Well, our weekly NBC/WSJ/Annenberg polls have collected merged data from interviews with 6,346 likely voters from Sept. 2 through Oct. 29, and here’s a pretty good clue from this 6,000-plus sample:

What is striking about these numbers is how similar they are to the 2010 exit poll, so make of that what you will. Also, these 6,000-plus interviews are a reminder to the political community to never make TOO MUCH of one single poll — like a survey saying that Republicans are slightly leading among a small sample of “definite” young voters. The other polls and aggregates don’t back that up.

Heads up: Four new NBC polls coming out on Sunday

On Sunday morning, we’re releasing FOUR final polls before Election Day — NBC/Marist polls of Georgia, Kentucky, and Louisiana, plus results from a national NBC/WSJ poll. So get ready for another Sunday poll-palooza.

SAN DIEGO (AP) — A Mexican judge on Friday ordered the immediate release of a jailed U.S. Marine veteran who spent eight months behind bars for crossing the border with loaded guns.

The judge called for retired Marine Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi (Tah-mor-EE-si) to be freed because of his mental state and did not make a determination on the illegal arms charges against the Afghanistan veteran diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder, according to a Mexican official who had knowledge of the ruling but was not authorized to give his name.

Tahmooressi has said he took a wrong turn on a California freeway that funneled him into a Tijuana port of entry with no way to turn back. His detention brought calls for his freedom from U.S. politicians, veterans groups and social media campaigns.

“It is with an overwhelming and humbling feeling of relief that we confirm that Andrew was released today after spending 214 days in Mexican Jail,” the family said in a statement.

(Reuters) – A daunting reality looms for President Barack Obama’s Democrats ahead of U.S. congressional elections on Tuesday: Voters from the Republican Party are much more fired up.

Reuters/Ipsos polling data shows Republicans are more certain they will vote, and see their ballot as a way to voice disapproval of Obama’s handling of the Ebola outbreak and his health insurance reform law.

The expectation of robust Republican turnout is why many forecasters see strong odds that the party will take over the Senate and expand its majority in the House of Representatives.

“It looks good for the Republicans,” said Robert Erikson, a political scientist at Columbia University. “The Democrats are at a disadvantage when it comes to turnout.”

About 55 percent of Republicans are certain they will vote, compared with 47 percent of Democrats, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling data for an online survey of 1,725 voters conducted Oct. 25-30. The poll had a credibility interval of 4.2 percentage points for Democrats and 4.8 points for Republicans.

While Republican turnout tends to be higher than Democrats’, fewer Americans identify as Republicans, which means contests are tightly fought.

Tuesday’s elections play to Republican strengths. While most voters are less interested in non-presidential contests, Republicans’ older, higher-income voters are more politically engaged.

Also helping to galvanize Republicans is their frustration over six years of Democratic control of the White House. The president’s party has lost seats in Congress in nearly every midterm since 1934.

James Campbell, a political scientist at the University at Buffalo, SUNY, said parties have bucked this trend only when their president enjoyed high approval ratings, as with Bill Clinton in 1998 and George W. Bush in 2002.

Obama’s approval rating is just 38 percent, according to other Reuters/Ipsos polling data, and he is a lightning rod for Republicans.

Fifty-four percent of Republicans polled said Obama’s handling of Ebola would be very important for them when they vote, versus 40 percent of Democrats.

Some 63 percent of Republicans are similarly focused on Islamic State, a militant group America is bombing in Iraq and Syria. That’s 20 points higher than among Democrats, and a sizable spread also holds regarding Obama’s healthcare overhaul.

Still, many political scientists don’t see this year’s threats and policy debates as the main factor that will drive Republicans to the polls.

“If these issues didn’t exist, there would be something else,” said Chris Jackson, research director at Ipsos.

Democrats are doing all they can to boost turnout. In Georgia, where Democrat Michelle Nunn and Republican David Perdue are battling for a Senate seat that is being vacated by a retiring Republican, there are signs that churches have boosted early voting by African Americans, said Michael McDonald, a professor at the University of Florida. These voters are overwhelmingly registered as Democrats and are expected to support Nunn.

A voter’s party and race can often be gleaned from early ballots. In North Carolina, McDonald said, Democrats appear to be ahead, having submitted 48 percent of ballots, compared with 32 percent by Republicans.

McDonald said Republicans’ early voting drive appears to be gaining steam in Iowa, while the two parties looked to be neck and neck in Colorado.

In the end, Democrats face an uphill battle.

“No matter what, we are going to see a bigger share of Republicans show up,” said Jackso

When Michelle goes out on the campaign trail on behalf of a candidate who she has great faith in and supports only she can’t quite recall his correct name it is a little like the old show “What’s My Line”. The only thing missing is John Daley.

More bad news as Hillary continues to get tied to bumbles the idiot. The only positive I can see from it is how early it is happening. There is time for a change of course, but is it enough time to undo the damage so thoroughly wrought by bumbles the un-fabulous??

The headline reads: Republicans have a “modest” lead in the quest to control the senate.

The fine print puts the number at 69%, which means by their lights the dim chances are 31%. Yet, the NYT editorial board calls this 2 to 1 lead modest. In parliamentarian terms it is more than a super majority, nevertheless modest in their view.

It is modest to NYT only because it reflects badly on their light of love–Obama. If, on the other hand, Obama held such a lead they would describe it as controlling, commanding and dispositive, as in game over.

Busy night trick or treating with my daughter. Whatever happens we have another 2 years of hell & 2 years is a political lifetime. If our beloved Hillary indeed plans on running, no matter what happens next Tuesday, she needs to better define herself and what she stands for much more effectively than her initial book tour / couldn’t pay our mortgages / business does not create jobs roll out. I understand she wants and needs the progressive/ far left votes to win the nomination, but she and Bill must know by now that Obama and his peeps have already been selecting their new leader and will never support her.

NEW YORK – While the Centers for Disease Control has removed from its website a warning that Ebola can be spread through sneezing, the World Health Organization has just issued new guidelines for health workers that specify protective equipment should be worn to protect the mouth, nose and eyes from contaminated droplets and fluids.

The WHO guidelines are based on a review of care of Ebola patients, the U.N. agency said.

Meanwhile, Friday, the CDC website removed a “Fact Sheet” posted Thursday that stirred controversy by admitting after weeks of apparent denial that Ebola can be spread by coughing and sneezing.

The WHO said the Guidelines Development Group it convened included participation of a wide range of experts from international organizations, including the CDC, Doctors without Borders and the Infection Control Africa Network.

“These guidelines hold an important role in clarifying effective personal protective equipment options that protect the safety of healthcare workers and patients from Ebola virus disease transmission,” says Edward Kelley, WHO director for service delivery and safety.

“Paramount to the guidelines’ effectiveness is the inclusion of mandatory training on the putting on, taking off and decontaminating of PPE, followed by mentoring for all users before engaging in any clinical care.”

The guidance posted by the CDC Thursday, captured by NaturalNews.com, said “droplets of the virus can travel short distances, less than 3 feet [one meter] from person to person.”

It further disclosed that a person “might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has germs on it and then touching their nose or mouth.”

Mike Adams, writing at NaturalNews.com, commented that the fact sheet meant “the CDC is now admitting it lied all along” by denying the Ebola virus could be spread by “indirect transmission routes,” including sneezing and coughing. The CDC, he said, had insisted Ebola can only be spread by “direct contact” with the body or bodily fluids of an Ebola-infected person.

The same CDC fact sheet also acknowledged Ebola can contaminate objects, saying “a person might also get infected by touching a surface or object that has germs on it and then touching their mouth or nose.”

Dr. Rossi Hassard, a professor of epidemiology at Mercy College, was quoted by the New York Post saying droplets of the Ebola virus could remain active on surfaces such as a table or doorknob.

The removal of the fact sheet was merely the most recent in a series of public reversals.

On Tuesday, the CDC issued guidance for health care workers specifying new procedures for Emergency Medical Services when handling Ebola patients in ambulance transfers that admitted “lessons had been learned from the recent experience caring for patients with Ebola in U.S. healthcare settings.”

On Oct. 20, reacting to the two nurses who contracted Ebola in Texas after treating patient Thomas Eric Duncan, the CDC “tightened guidance” for U.S. health care workers, specifying no skin should be exposed and all workers be properly trained and supervised by a monitor as they put on and remove personal protective equipment.

Then, on Thursday, as a result of the developing controversy of nurse Kaci Hickox’s refusal to comply with state-imposed quarantine requirements after retuning to the U.S. from West Africa, the CDC issued new guidance for “active monitoring” of persons with potential exposure to Ebola, including daily phone calls to state health authorities to report their temperatures and possibly even state-imposed travel restrictions

The apparent “learning on the fly” cast suspicion on continued reassurances by CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden that the CDC had all necessary procedures in place, and Ebola would be contained in the United States if health care officials and workers followed CDC recommendations precisely.

Then, when nurses Nina Pham and Amber Vinson contracted Ebola after treating Duncon, the CDC appeared to blame the nurses, suggesting they became infected because they didn’t follow CDC “safety protocols” for treating Ebola patients.

The assertion that CDC protocols were sufficient was undermined when the CDC issued new guidelines specifying health care workers treating Ebola patients must have every inch of their bodies covered by protective equipment and that trained supervisors were needed to monitor workers as they put on and took off the equipment.

Still today, the CDC continues to hold the line that there is no risk Ebola can be airborne transmitted.

Yet, as reported by WND, the U.S. Army has published a widely used medical management handbook, now in its seventh edition, that warns viral hemorrhagic fever, the category of viruses that includes Ebola, can be an airborne threat in certain circumstan

The above article should be sent to that political hack in Maine who Holder appointed to be a federal district court judge. The governor of that state is politically covered for whatever happens, but this judge is in deep kaka if anything happens. He relies on the disease profile published by CDC but as you can see it keeps changing day to day, which leaves one with the impression that they have not got a handle on this thing at all, but are trying to bullshit us. Granted, they handed him a hot potato, but he erred on the side of unsettled science as opposed to public health. T

Sheila Pinette of the Maine CDC has released information that the roommate of Kaci Hickox, while in West Africa has displayed signs of ebola. Pinette says “The respondents roommate in Africa became infected without knowing how she became infected with Ebola. (Any potential risk to respondent from that incident has passed).” This is one of 35 points Pinette made while filing a verified petition for public health order yesterday with the state.

What did arrogant nurse Kaci Hickox know about her roommate’s Ebola, and when did she know it?

Maine’s battle to keep her quarantined for another fortnight continues despite Hickox’s stubbornness.

Notice how the progs rush to his defense in the comment section. Imagine what is must be like trying to control the group of prima donna staff writers. I discount completely the reactions of his cheer leaders. They are self serving biased and uninformative. The only fault I can see with the owners is whatever possessed them to make Tabbi a manager. How can he be expected to manage employees when he cannot manage himself. He is a latter day Hunter S Thomson in my opinion.

And then you have the prog’s explanation for the disappearing files on Sharyl’s computer:

“A stuck backspace key is, unfortunately, a less dramatic explanation than a hidden government conspiracy to surveil reporters who write unflattering things about the President. It is also the more likely one.”

And “there is not a smideon of proof of corruption”.

These prog fuckers need to take their patent medicine show to the next town. They are beginning to sound like a broken record. This is what happens when you try to defend an indefensible position. Eventually, you cannot separate what is false from what is true, and you end up with the same old lines which lead nowhere.

Hot on the heels of the Department of Justice’s suddenly-renewed interest in George Zimmerman’s civil rights liability in the self-defense killing of Trayvon Martin (see: FBI Convenes Grand Jury For Zimmerman Civil Rights Case) just days before next week’s election comes another DOJ action timed perfectly for electoral manipulation.

National Review Online is reporting that the FBI (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DOJ) has made the highly unusual decision to disclose their investigation into Mike Rounds (pictured above), a Republican Senate candidate in South Dakota, less than a week before next Tuesday’s vote.

The alleged misconduct being investigated is somewhat obscure–something involving a work visa program in the state–but it is notable that the alleged misconduct was to have occurred three years ago, and the FBI’s announcement comes a year after the state’s own attorney general closed its own investigation without bringing any charges.

The concern, of course, is that the FBI announcement was timed to influence Rounds’ prospects in next week’s voting. When asked for more detail, the FBI replied that the agent in charge of the investigation would be unavailable to provide additional information until late next week, after the election, thus leaving a cloud over Rounds’ candidacy through election day.

The National Review Online piece brought in some interesting insight from a career FBI agent, now retired, Jeff Lanza:

Jeff Lanza, who worked for the FBI for more than 20 years, tells National Review Online that the acknowledgement of an investigation is a breach of FBI protocol unless a public official has made the investigation public, knowledge of the investigation is already widespread, or the public admission serves a law-enforcement function. Lanza tells NRO that it remains unclear whether the investigation met any of these standards, and he says he is surprised by the bureau’s acknowledgement of the ongoing investigation. “It’s highly unusual that you would acknowledge an investigation into a political figure who is running for office in an upcoming election,” he says. “I think it deserves an explanation, because it does come off as potentially political when you announce an investigation in a candidate who’s running for office.” The FBI has not identified the specific target or targets of its investigation publicly.

If you believe the progs that the missing files were caused by a stuck back key, then the two computer experts that CBS brought in to investigate this matter and the computer expert that Sharyl herself hired on her own nickel—all of them world class, the kind that run anti hacking and hacking operations against the Chinese were all wrong and missed the obvious. Thank god we have these prog fuckers to solve these otherwise intractable problems. They are products of a completely different evolutionary chain from the rest of us, and they are rabid ideologues to boot.

Wbboei, you’re so right about that Gawker article and the comments. Most of the readers are so so “relieved” because according to them there is no sexual harassment alleged against Taibbi. It’s amazing to read, as you say, how they begin to reconstruct their own views based on their own biases while doing the best not to see their hero tarnished.

There is one comment that gets no response from anyone (that can be read because the responses are hidden). That one comment is about what leftist hero Tiabbi himself has written in his book. But Tiabbi’s own words do not bother anyone at all except for a very few whose comments are hidden and have to be called up if you want to see them. Even the hidden comments mostly all try to dispute the very meaning of what Tiabbi wrote even though it was Tiabbi himself who wrote the words quoted. The excuses for Tiabbi range from “Tiabbi was just trying to show how crazy things were in that atmosphere” to the “I’m not defending this but it’s almost 20 years old”. (seems like an attempted defense to us)

If it was a conservative writer or a Republican these commenters would likely say there is more to the story and that there is a giant coverup and that war on women, and why can’t conservatives be human. Instead we get defenses to Tiabbi’s own words about his behavior (his fellow men from the anectote have bragged about sex with underage women/girls but no problem he’s a leftist so all right Jack.

pg. 134: We have been pretty rough on our girls. We’d ask our Russian staff to flash their asses or breasts for us. We’d tell them that if they wanted to keep their jobs, they’d have to perform unprotected anal sex with us. Nearly every day, we asked our female staff if they approved of anal sex. That was a fixation of ours. “Can I fuck you in the ass? Huh? I mean, without a rubber? Is that okay?” It was all part of the fun.

No wonder Tiabbi and his frat boy journolisters loved Obama and his frat boys.

The Democrats picked some of the worst candidates this year I have ever seen. As in 2008 they “picked” who would run on their tickets (instead of letting party voters decide) and are now stuck with them. Braley is a typical progressive asshole. “Better” than the voters in his state, he pandered to Texas lawyers (Braley is so stupid he probably didn’t realize that his rich lawyer audience were decedents of farm and ranch families) denigrating farmers and then the “chicken” incident. He is an all around ass and “never was” lawyer. The “War on Women” theme of the election and subsequent selection of non-entities such a Coakley (it was her turn to loose as governor by gum!), Wendy Davis the mental case, Landrieu (I’m going out with everyone pissed off at me! cause my daddy Moon said so!), party apparatchiks and low achiever bench warmers like Shaheen and Hagen, various beta male candidates imitating a uterus (Udall of the “my brain won’t work, ow!) is a rolling disaster. Republicans preselect candidates also but they did a much better job of it this year. Only allowing Democratic candidates who were agreeable with the 2008 party candidate swindle has bit them in the butt. I saw a recent video of Al Franken mumbling and blinking to an editorial board or some such. I am under the impression that he has had a recent stroke. Why isn’t he in the hospital?

The Clintons’ appearing for these awful Democratic candidates reminds me of being forced to take a dumb, socially inept, ugly cousin to a party. It is not a kindness. It is not a favor. It makes the cousin look worse by comparison. The Clinton’s look like they are doing it out of familial duty and pity.

Margaret Carlson – wannabe pundit, faux-journalist, smart ass, liar. There many other apt descriptions of her – not many flattering, however. Margaret was particularly insulting and catty in many of her remarks about Hillary in 2008, but with good reason. Bless Margaret’s heart, she was under the spell of The One she had been waiting for. Some might have thought it strange that Margaret, a self-identified feminist would choose to support a male candidate over a female, but to Margaret, Barack was everything she could have wished for in a candidate, and more. He was smooth talking, super cool, Ivy League educated, and best of all, he was half-black. It might have appeared on the surface that a real feminist would have objected to the same old injustice – inexperienced, untested male given the job over the experienced, proven female, but WTF, in 2008, many (so-called) feminists found the whole support-the-qualified-woman mentality a little dated – especially when they could support a cool, (half) black guy.

In a recent Bloomberg article, Margaret blames Udall’s potential (likely) loss to Gardener in the Colorado senate race in part, on his inept attempt to reach out to women voters. She takes him to task for (get this!) attempting to manipulate women (AYFKM?):

“Udall and his consultants — who should be drummed out of politics for malpractice — are running a campaign way beyond its sell-by date. Legend has it that in 2010, his fellow Democratic senator from Colorado, Michael Bennet, won a close race by concentrating on women’s issues. Of course, we don’t know whether Bennet won because he ran on women’s issues or whether he won while running on those issues among others.

If there’s one thing women keep an eye peeled for it’s men who try to manipulate them. If you are trying so hard to pander to us on one thing, it’s because you are assuming we are one-issue simpletons who won’t penalize you for ignoring all of the other things we care about. Turn me into a Barbie doll voter, and I will turn on you.”

Wow! Margaret knows how to keep from being manipulated. She’s smart, she’s savvy, she’s a (please?!) feminist. She was not being manipulated by Barack in 2008 when she made this statement about him (and this slam against Hillary):

“From the start of his career, Obama wanted, and needed, to remove the race card from the political deck. While it isn’t clear from whose sleeve the card was pulled, it is likely it wasn’t from the person with the most to lose.

If Hillary Clinton’s campaign had taken only one shot at Obama, it might have been blown off as a mistake. But four shots constitutes a pattern, with Clinton’s former New Hampshire chairman, Bill Shaheen, Representative Charles Rangel, Clinton pollster Mark Penn and Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson all getting into the act. “

admin
November 1, 2014 at 6:03 am
———————
Journalism, which was once a trade larded with blue collar reporters with ink stains on their cuffs who congregated in the bars and other establishments around Herald Square has had many make-overs and they would be first to tell you that it is indisputably a profession dominated by Ivy League jet setting celebrities and and shady race baiting humps like Al Shartpon (sharpee). Where else could a no talent like Matt Lauer make 20 million per year?

If it is true that the pen is mightier than the sword, then the temptation to abuse it for money is obvious. The pamphlets of Jeffersons era were festooned with personal attacks and vendettas. The purpose of the First Amendment was not to protect these gutter snipes, but for the patriot in his basement with a printing press who seeks to print the truth about a tyrannical and oppressive government. Nor was it intended to protect the press from driving the nation to war as Hearst clearly did with the sinking of the Maine. Nor was it intended to crucify innocent people through yellow journalism as Hearst did again to force his way into the Los Angeles market in the trial of two innocent police officers. Such is the power of the press. Such is its susceptibility to abuse by unethical people.

How are we to account for this transformation of the press from a trade to a profession. To make my own view on the subject clear, I do not regard the press as a profession for one simple reason. Doctors, lawyers and other recognized professions have a set of ethical rules which are enforced by a group charged with oversight. The media however has no such set of binding rules. The rules they do have are purely discretionary, and they are honored more in the breach than in the observance, and the awards they give out to their members are largely popularity contests. In sum, for all their pretense and money, in the absence of such rules it is difficult for me to see them as more than they actually are.

Technology has played a major role in this transformation. The rise of television, the 24 hour news cycle, and the rise of celebrity journalists has attracted a whole new class of people. The blue collar brigades are an artifact of history. Today what we have is Ivy Leaguers who all see themselves as Woodward and Bernstein diamonds in the rough, and they write more for their peers than the public. Also, we see a different kind of editor–not the Apples, but the Kellihers–scion of the head of Standard Oil of California, and fourth generation trust fund babies like Young Arthur, who unlike King Arthur fails to ask much less wonder that else do the simple folk do. After all, who is he going to ask? His paramour Caroline Kennedy who is Obama’s Ambassador to Japan? How would she know anything about regular “folks”. Nice to know that Obama and O’Reilly are both looking out for the folks.

Milbank, Cilezzi, Taibbi–birds of a feather. They proudly declare their progressive credentials. Why Milbank–a product of New York money went to Yale and was head of the progessive union. And he like his fellow progressives are very progressive with other people’s money, but hardly ever their own. They crave celebrity status, and will do anything they can to get it. Street hustlers and liars to a fault. The last thing they ever think of much less worry about is giving their readers the truth. They defend the fourth amendment when a democrat is in office, and forgive its abuses by Obama. This is what happens to a trade which has no ethical standards, lets personal bias affect its work, and seeks celebrity status. It cannot speak truth to power.

The worst thing a nation can do is let people like this control their political system.

This is why I prefer retail politics. It removes the filter which separates candidates from the voters. That filter is subject to such abuse that at a certain point it becomes the undoing of democracy.

The bewilderment expressed here and elsewhere over HRC’s remark that “corporations and businesses don’t create jobs” is thoroughly refuted by Media Matters, which explains at length that the remarks were taken out of context and that…

…. Taken in context, Clinton’s comments are almost entirely unremarkable — and certainly don’t conflict with the philosophy that trade can contribute to job growth…. The full transcript of her remarks shows she was making the established observation that minimum wage increases can boost a sluggish economy by generating demand, and that tax breaks for the rich don’t necessarily move companies to create jobs:

CLINTON:

Don’t let anybody tell you that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs. They always say that. I’ve been through this. My husband gave working families a raise in the 1990s. I voted to raise the minimum wage and guess what? Millions of jobs were created or paid better and more families were more secure. That’s what we want to see here, and that’s what we want to see across the country.

And don’t let anybody tell you, that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs. You know, that old theory, trickle-down economics. That has been tried. That has failed. That has failed rather spectacularly.

One of the things my husband says, when people ask, What did you bring to Washington? He says, well I brought arithmetic. And part of it was he demonstrated why trickle-down should be consigned to the trash bin of history. More tax cuts for the top and for companies that ship jobs overseas while taxpayers and voters are stuck paying the freight just doesn’t add up. Now that kind of thinking might win you an award for outsourcing excellence, but Massachusetts can do better than that. Martha [Coakley] understands it. She knows you have to create jobs from everyone working together and taking the advantages of this great state and putting them to work.

Economic experts agree that job growth is tied to the economic security of the middle class.

U.S. economic growth has historically relied on consumer spending, and middle class consumers are “the true job creators,” Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz points out. Right now, the U.S. economy is “demand-starved,” as Economic Policy Institute’s (EPI) Joshua Smith puts it. Steiglitz says that, of all the problems facing the U.S. economy, “The most immediate is that our middle class is too weak to support the consumer spending that has historically driven our economic growth.”

…. UC Berkeley economist Robert Reich agrees that the problem in the U.S. economy is demand. “Businesses are reluctant to spend more and create more jobs because there aren’t enough consumers out there able and willing to buy what businesses have to sell,” he writes, and places the blame on low paychecks and growing inequality: “The reason consumers aren’t buying is because consumers’ paychecks are dropping… Consumers can’t and won’t buy more.” He says the key to job growth is “reigniting demand” by “putting more money in consumers’ pockets.”

From the Huffington Post:

Can we get real for a moment? Businesses don’t need more financial incentives. They’re already sitting on a vast cash horde estimated to be upwards of $1.6 trillion. Besides, large and middle-sized companies are having no difficulty getting loans at bargain-basement rates, courtesy of the Fed.

In consequence, businesses are already spending as much as they can justify economically. Almost two-thirds of the measly growth in the economy so far this year has come from businesses rebuilding their inventories. But without more consumer spending, they won’t spend more. A robust economy can’t be built on inventory replacements.

The problem isn’t on the supply side. It’s on the demand side. Businesses are reluctant to spend more and create more jobs because there aren’t enough consumers out there able and willing to buy what businesses have to sell.

The reason consumers aren’t buying is because consumers’ paychecks are dropping, adjusted for inflation.

The economic benefits of a minimum wage increase are widely accepted. Over 600 economists signed a recent letter supporting an increase, arguing, “Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front.”

Mitch McConnell, that great Rethug leader you all “maybe” want to re-elect, has voted 17 times against increasing the minimum wage, and in a “stupid move”, Hillary, Grimes and others are making an issue of it.

One final point on journalism. A friend of mine was the editor of a newspaper which was widely regarded as the best small town newspaper in the country. His father was president of the Newspaper Publishers Association. He maintained that in our time, the 24 hours news cycle was the game changer, since it required just in time journalism, thereby preventing a careful assessment of the facts. What it produced instead was a feeding frenzy of piranhas. What made his paper the best in the nation was the fact that he had an excellent editor who was of the blue collar ilk described above, who in turn had a series of meticulous investigative reporters who were given the time to fully investigate a story, and to corroborate everything in it. Often, he said, they had to abandon the story at a loss for want of corroboration. He said they would sooner do that than ruin someone’s reputation needlessly. Finally, being a small town newspaper, when he got things wrong, he would hear about it at church, the tavern or at lunch from his friends and neighbors. He had a good feedback mechanism, whereas big media has no such mechanism with respect to the content they report. Their only feedback mechanism is their audience numbers which cater to sensationalism, not truth.

I know what Tom Sowell would say. He would say a minimum wage has a depressing effect on hiring. And if you cannot get a job, you can never hope to climb the economic ladder. One of the things I learned in dealing with the Teamsters is that the union always wants more, and sometimes they have the leverage to demand and get it. But the unemployment lines are full of people who had the best contract in the industry and no employer around to pay it. With 92 million people of working age not working, it is more important to get everyone working and let the market determine how their wage rates. If you take the opposite path, employers will not hire unless they are certain they can pass those costs along to the consumer. The answer to that question will vary case to case. Long ago, the Teamsters tried to eliminate competition in the market through contract provisions precluding signatory companies from subcontracting to entities who failed to pay Teamster rates. That project failed when de regulation was introduced by Carter. Nunc pro tunc. Then as now.

… if you do not believe that businesses create jobs, then it does not matter whether they fail to hire because of a minimum wage which is more than the market will bear.

Businesses will create new products and jobs only if they have enough demand for those products.

There are only two ways of supporting demand in a flailing economy: A government-fed stimulus or a rise in wages across the board.

That is why I supported the stimulus of 2009. Scam that it was, it did not restart the economy; but it did prevent a total collapse.

The market won’t bear an increased wage? Humbug. The figure the HuffPo gives is correct: WJC has also pointed out this horde of cash in businesses’ coffers. Businesses are sitting on a stockpile of cash ($1.6 trillion) and can very well afford to pay higher wages out of that horde. Within three months, demand would increase enough to invest in greater production and start innovating again.

The case for the minimum wage increase is thus solid. If you don’t think so, then hope McConnell gets re-elected, he’s sure to prevent it from happening.

Of course you can find other economists who don’t agree. Some (but very very few) economists said in 2009 that the government should just let the economy collapse to get the bad blood out of the system.

If we had done that, then China would have been the world’s leading economy starting in 2009, followed by India and Brazil, and we would be fourth or maybe even fifth or sixth. And it would have been a permanent status.

We could have let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt along with Detroit and New York City, and dozens of other cities and states.

Anyway, whether Media Matters is a Soros organization or not does not invalidate its direct and full quote of HRC, nor does it make its reasoning defective. Nor that of the economists cited by HuffPo, nor the reasoning of Hillary Clinton, which is based on experience.

I contend that most of the media is making a big story out of “businesses don’t create jobs” and Republicans will too, in the future. But her remarks were justified. Nothing you have said convinces me otherwise.

When I complain about corporations controlling the political process to the detriment of the American People, I do so in the hope that we can get back to a political system based on the wisdom of the founding fathers which begins with “We the people”. When Nader and his fellow prog complain about corporations controlling the political process to the detriment of the American People, he does so with the intention of creating a system where the party holds the power, and the people are reduced to the status of serfs and a stall fed existence which denies their humanity.

An environmental bill long championed by the Obama administration and environmental groups was quietly signed into law this week. The bill, initially expected to fail, was bolstered by last-minute support from a group of moderate Republicans seeking reelection in predominantly Democratic leaning states. The bill strengthens environmental pollution penalties, emission standards and creates a surprising new three dollar a gallon tax increase on gasoline. – See more at: http://nationalreport.net/additional-three-dollar-gas-tax-take-effect-jan-1st-2015/#sthash.Be3OWL7d.dpuf

Wanna bet McConnell voted for this!!! 😡
————
I doubt he voted for it. This is an election year for him. So as minority leader, he got with Reid, found out how many votes were needed, and ordered moderate Republicans who are not up for election to throw in the towel. Then he went on the campaign trail and told the voters of his state that he is adamantly opposed to the bill, and voted against it with all his heart, and all his soul and all his mind, as he basks in the applause. That is the way McConnell Inc. operates.

Democratic efforts to turn out the young and nonwhite voters who sat out the 2010 midterm elections appear to be paying off in several Senate battleground states.

More than 20 percent of the nearly three million votes already tabulated in Georgia, North Carolina, Colorado and Iowa have come from people who did not vote in the last midterm election, according to an analysis of early-voting data by The Upshot.

These voters who did not participate in 2010 are far more diverse and Democratic than the voters from four years ago. On average across these states, 39 percent are registered Democrats and 30 percent are registered Republicans. By comparison, registered Republicans outnumbered Democrats in these states by an average of 1 percentage point in 2010.

The turnout among black voters is particularly encouraging for Democrats, who need strong black turnout to compete in racially polarized states like Georgia and North Carolina. In those two states, black voters so far represent 30 percent of the voters who did not participate in 2010. By comparison, 24 percent of all those who voted in those states in 2010 were black.

But so far, there have not been enough new Democratic votes to erase the Republicans’ expected turnout advantage. It remains to be seen whether turnout among new voters will continue at these rates. The Upshot’s model, Leo, still gives the Republicans a 68 percent chance of taking the Senate.

Just for the record, I will mention for about the millionth time that it’s not that I (can’t speak for others) WANT us to elect McConnell or any other Republican) – it’s that I DO NOT WANT us to elect Dimocrats, at least not this election.

The difference between the two goals is clear, at least in my mind, as I have attempted to explain it. Maybe it makes no sense to anyone but me, but really, it doesn’t have to.

Yes Bill…how does it feel? Just substitute conservative, right leaning, Christian, and you are …RACIST…bigot…Welcome to the progressive left, where freedom of speech is a fantasy, only allowed if you are a black, muslim, atheist,fraud loving jerk.

By the way, I think the Dems are putting these articles out there stating black turnout is over the top, to set us up for races they plan to steal..just enough to keep the Senate…

I always read Media Matters for the freshest, uh, propaganda. And why so touchy? The condescension and spleen seems a little thicker than usual. Good manners would require that be controlled a little better. LOL.

Here is one case of early voting that the NYT maven neglects to mention–Colorado

Were he to do so, he dismiss it as early voting not representative of the body politic.

Once you get past the Harvard aphorism that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, one might wonder:

Whe should early voting results, such as they are, should be encouraging and by inference representative of the body politic for Dimocrat candidates in Iowa and Georgia, but insignificant and not representative for Republican candidates in Colorado?

Is the answer that Cohn predicted the 2012 election and is now Carnac the magician?

If so, then why does he give us this caveat which is so unbecoming tarot readers, because, by God they are supposed to know these things.

The other possibility is the progs he is close to have given him a peak under the sheets at their national fraud operation.

If so then would he make such a bold prediction and then retreat with weasel words like:

(My overly optimist shot in the dark) remains to be seen.

Unless he was a weasel in which case we could hardly blame him.

In the alternative, perhaps it was the fear of this:

Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt;
Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt.
Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,
Defiance gleamed in Casey’s eye, a sneer curled Casey’s lip.

And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,
And Casey stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped—
“That ain’t my style,” said Casey. “Strike one,” the umpire said.

From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore.
“Kill him! Kill the umpire!” shouted some one on the stand;
And it’s likely they’d have killed him had not Casey raised his hand.

With a smile of Christian charity great Casey’s visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;
He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the spheroid flew;
But Casey still ignored it, and the umpire said, “Strike two.”

“Fraud!” cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered fraud;
But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Casey wouldn’t let that ball go by again.

The sneer is gone from Casey’s lip, his teeth are clinched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate.
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey’s blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville—mighty Casey has struck out.
—————

GOP up 104,000 in CO early voting

POSTED AT 2:31 PM ON NOVEMBER 1, 2014 BY ED MORRISSEY

Share on Facebook 11 78 SHARES
When Democrats pushed through mail-in voting for Colorado, Republicans objected over the potential for vote fraud. So far, though, the GOP has become its biggest beneficiary. Late yesterday, a report from the Secretary of State showed Republicans with a 104,000-ballot lead, giving them a nine-point edge in early voting:

Republicans are blowing out Democrats in Colorado early voting, the secretary of State there says. …

The AP said that 41 percent of the 1.1 million early ballots were from Republicans, with roughly a third coming from Democrats and a quarter from independent voters. Colorado’s voters are basically evenly split among the three groups.
The AP further noted that the GOP has had good penetration into traditionally Democratic demographics — even among younger voters:

More than 60 percent of those whose votes have been sent are 55 or older, a segment that grew from 45 percent in the midterm election in 2010.

Democrats have been trying to turn out voters who usually skip lower-interest midterms. But it’s Republicans who normally miss those elections who are voting in greater numbers this year.

The GOP even leads Democrats among voters 18 to 25, a group that has been the backbone of Democrats’ dominance over the past decade in Colorado.

“They wish they were in our position right now,” Michael Short, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said of Democrats.
In 2012′s presidential election exit polling for Colorado, Barack Obama won 60% of the 18-29YO demo, and 52% of the 30-44YOs. In 2010′s Senate race, during a Republican wave election, exit polling didn’t capture enough of the younger demo to provide solid data, as they only comprised 9% of the vote. However, Michael Bennet won enough of the middle-age vote to cancel out advantages for Ken Buck in the other age demos to win. Buck won the senior-citizen vote in 2010, and it’s almost assured that Republicans will carry it this time against Udall, too.

And let’s not forget that Democrats had a 5-point edge over the GOP in the final vote in 2010, too. If that flips, then bot Udall and John Hickenlooper are toast on Tuesday.

The RCP average on this race is Gardner up by 3.8%, but more importantly with the incumbent only averaging 42.6%, a deeply dangerous figure for an incumbent in any two-way race. Aside from two YouGov polls that got superseded by a later iteration, Udall hasn’t had a lead in this race since the beginning of September, and none at all outside the MoE since then. The last time Udall has been to 50% or more was July, an outlier that never got reproduced before or since. Two separate polls in October put Udall at 39% (USA Today/Suffolk and Quinnipiac). Udall’s high mark in October was 47% in an earlier YouGov poll, which dropped to 42% in its final iteration.

The gubernatorial race polling has been closer. The current RCP average puts the race at a 0.3% advantage to Republican Bob Beuaprez, but Hickenlooper’s incumbency only gets 44.6% of the vote. Two polls in October have shown Hickenlooper ahead, but neither of those put him above 46%. Three polls put Beauprez up, one of which was a 49/47 lead. Two others have it at a 46/46 tie, including the most recent Denver Post/Survey USA poll. However, if Republicans go into Tuesday with a 9-point advantage in early voting with half of the expected ballots cast already in place, the polling calculations may be way off — and Democrats would have to outperform Republicans by nearly 20 points or more on Tuesday to even come in range of 2010′s partisan split.

Needless to say, that doesn’t seem terribly likely. Neither does a good night for Democrats in Colorado.

Wbboei I am in Ohio and have already voted.
I am watching to see if the Speaker of the House losses . 🙂

————–
I played golf with him at the Plateau south of Bellevue. So have thousands of other people so I do not wish to make more of it than it really was. We had a major operation in his district and he is a pretty good guy, a bon vivante, but not Speaker material. And the people who stand behind him in leadership—McCarthy and McMorris Rogers are no threat to his tenure, the way their predecessor Cantor clearly was. One of the things he told me in passing is that he has a safe district, and he people there let him do pretty much anything he wants, within reason. I take that to mean he is not likely to be defeated. I would have guessed the dims would white ballot him, but apparently not. I do think though that this will be his last term in office, because he would be looking forward to retirement. Not so Mitch however, or his wife. He will stay on as long as the voters will have him. And then he will become a lobbyist. Like most RINOs he is a Washington fixture.

Mormaer (and Wbboei), you are right. Hillary’s comments made no sense whatsoever. The context does not matter because the words matter. Hillary’s statement was a series of economic non sequiturs. Media Matters did for Hillary what many do for Obama (WORM – What Obama Really Meant).

Whatever Hillary meant is not what she said. What she said will hurt her every time she has to explain it because Youtube will live on forever.

Bottom line: businesses and corporations do create jobs. It is stupid to argue otherwise. It is even more stupid to cite Media Matters on this as they get Hillary deeper into the hole. Why do we say this? Because Hillary knows what she said was a mess and she immediately tried to take the shoe out of her mouth. This incident is yet another reason why we think Hillary is wrong to campaign for these Obama Dimocrats.

Hillary understands and says what she said makes no sense. It was a mess of a non sequitur a.k.a. “shorthanded”:

Under fire for her comment that businesses don’t create jobs, Hillary Clinton said Monday that she had “shorthanded this point” in a way that obscured what she actually meant.

Mrs. Clinton had appeared at a rally in Boston Friday for Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley, at which she drew criticism for saying, “Don’t let anybody tell you that, you know, it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs.”

Republicans seized on the line, which echoed a remark from President Barack Obama in the 2012 campaign when he seemed to play down the work of entrepreneurs and businesspeople.

“If you’ve got a business –- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen,” Mr. Obama said at the time.

Speaking Monday at a campaign event in New York State, Mrs. Clinton said she had misstated her point at the Coakley rally. What she meant was that certain tax policies crimp job creation and hurt the economy, she said.

“I shorthanded this point the other day, so let me be absolutely clear about what I’ve been saying for a couple of decades,” said Mrs. Clinton, who is widely expected to run for president in 2016.

“Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in an America where workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out — not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas.”

Even with the clarification, Republicans aren’t likely to let Mrs. Clinton soon forget her earlier comment.

America Rising, a super PAC that aims to keep Mrs. Clinton out of the White House, featured at the top of its website a video clip of her speech in Boston.

Barack Obama supporters want to tie Hillary to Obama so they rejoice and defend when Hillary says something stupid that came out of the mouth of Barack Obama. Instead of trying to defend this sheer stupidity we think the best defense is what Hillary did, label it a campaign speech impromptu mishap that occasionally happens and then correct the record.

Hillary said something stupid that echoed stupid Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren. Unlike stupid Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren, Hillary immediately realized what she had said was stupid and Hillary wisely corrected the record as soon as possible.

Oh we will hear all sorts of fakery from the Dems for the next 3 days….oh i’ve seen all day…our early vote will save us, our voters are coming out….don’t believe a word of it, they are not motivated, they don’t care.

Right now, jesweezy, they’re all Dims to me. Anyway, according to Barack, Tuesday’s election for every Dimocrat on the ballot is about him, his policies. I didn’t hear a single Dim candidate counter that remark in any way. If there are any Dems left in the party, they either haven’t tried to oppose the Dims’ destruction of this country, or they have tried and failed.

Mormaer (and Wbboei), you are right. Hillary’s comments made no sense whatsoever. The context does not matter because the words matter. Hillary’s statement was a series of economic non sequiturs. Media Matters did for Hillary what many do for Obama (WORM – What Obama Really Meant).
***************************************

Bingo!…absolutely Hill made a mistake and she has made a few others while she’s campaigning and getting caught up in the moment…like when she said Joni Earnst wanted to stop women from getting mammograms…honestly, I expect a higher level of discourse from Hillary…that is why I believe she is pandering with whatever group she is with…dream act, immigration, mammorgrams, war on women…it is kind of insulting but hopefully this phase will be over very soon…

imo…if Hillary wants to emulate or be associated or connected to anyone it should be Bill and his presidency…

Hillary should be working on bringing the successful strategy and actions from Bill’s two successful terms as Prez into the 21st century…she should be updating the basics of what Bill succeeded with…

…standing up for the middle class
…making government a lean mean functioning machine
…getting rid of waste, duplication and abuse
…working on making citizens of illegals that have been standing in line and playing by the rules, etc
…making health care work for the middle class and not put them in the poor house
etc, etc, etc,
and working across the aisle…even if it means all nighters…

O is the past…he is a lame duck, he is unpopular and a failure…and when he is out of office books and books are going to be written about how bad he really was and how much was covered up

Hillary needs to stand on principle, be strong and go forward…not sound like an echo for whoever she happens to be standing next to…

I agree totally! YOUR post hit the nail on the head. I wish she’d just get away from this bunch of losers. I am not sure how she will extricate herself now and when they LOSE on Tuesday she and Bill are going to have targets on their back.

perhaps they plan to come out with a “new plan” for the future, basing the “new plan” on the realization that American wants and needs something different so maybe they plan to have a

Agree S and I thought I posted something similar but not as eloquently. She messed up and better get her “A” game on post Tuesday .
——–
Based on the numbers right now it looks like dems keep senate by at least 2 .GOP has run on nothing but anti-Obama which apparently is not enough.

Joni Ernst has charged to achieve a 7-point lead over Democrat Bruce Braley in a new Iowa Poll, which buoys the GOP’s hope that an Iowa victory will be the tipping point to a Republican takeover of the U.S. Senate.

Ernst, a state senator and military leader, enjoys 51 percent support among likely voters. That’s a majority, and it’s her biggest lead in the three Iowa Polls conducted this fall. Braley, a congressman and trial lawyer, gets 44 percent, according to The Des Moines Register’s final Iowa Poll before Tuesday’s election.

“This race looks like it’s decided,” said J. Ann Selzer, who conducted the poll for the Register. “That said, there are enormous resources being applied to change all that.”

The news will thrill Republican activists nationwide, who are counting on Iowa as an anchor for regaining the majority in the U.S. Senate. On Saturday, a progressive group organized a conference call with Majority Leader Harry Reid to urge Iowa Democrats “to double down and save the Senate.”

“If we win Iowa, we’re going to do just fine,” he said. “Iowa is critical, there’s no other way to say it.”

If Republicans control the Senate, Reid said, “think of what that would mean for our country.”

It’s hard to see much in these poll results that Braley could capitalize on to build a groundswell, Selzer said. “None of this looks good for him,” she said.

Braley has lost vote share since an early October Iowa Poll (he dropped from 46 percent to 44 percent) while Ernst has increased her share (from 47 percent to 51 percent now).

Another sign of trouble: Braley is losing by 3 points in his home congressional district in left-leaning northeast Iowa. In the early October poll, he was up by 1 point there.

That site is a satirical news site like The Onion. In other words, the news report about a $3 gas tax starting on January 1, 2015 is fake.
——————
Or, it could be a trail balloon for Obama’s 2016 budget.

He has reason to be cautious since each of his prior budgets were rejected

The time was 1943. The place was somewhere in the Atlantic, beneath the Southern Cross. A medical officer walks across the deck of a destroyer escort, and climbs the ladder into officer country. The ship is on a mission to search for and destroy German u-boats that have been preying on merchant shipping. He passed the door of the new captain, who he suspects of being a basket case after his last ordeal at sea, where he served as the first mate of a merchant vessel which was shot out from under him by a u-boat, causing the death of his new bride who was sailing home aboard his ship. Among the officers and the men, there is a sense that this captain may not be up to the job, given the fact that he was not a navy line officer. They soon learn different, when the sonar man spots a bogie–a u-boat and a classic struggle for life and death ensues. What the captain does right off the bat, is he shows he will work along side the men, knows how to fight the enemy, and explains what he wants each man to do, and rather than giving an order, he asks “can I rely on you”. That question cements the relationship and it builds trust. A man like Obama is haughty, arrogant, and utterly incapable of forging a bond like that one. Most people are not. But the real leaders are.
———————————-

The Perils of Trust
by Richard Rodriguez

(snip)

Back in the Great Depression, when people lost trust in their institutions, they began to work with each other and issue local scrip.

It’s all about trust. The point of scrip and self-help in general is not to have too much of it.

This reflects itself in the way we network with people. The most important tool of libertarians is the P2P or peer-to-peer network. This is how Napster used to work and that is how Bitcoin works. “Peer-to-peer (P2P) computing or networking is a distributed application architecture that partitions tasks or work loads between peers. Peers are equally privileged, equipotent participants in the application.”

Nobody has a privileged position. Nobody has all the trust.

By contrast, the “liberal” or leftist world and the entertainment industry work on the opposite principle. With socialism there’s the Vanguard and the Masses. With Hollywood there’s the Star and there’s the Audience. The whole purpose of these systems is to build hierarchies of power. One side has the monopoly of money, force and trust. The other side has the need to trust.

This basic asymmetry means that, under socialism government is not ‘another word for things we choose to do together’. It is another word for something that tells you what to do.

All hierarchs can use the royal “we”. Now modern leaders try to hide this fact, but sometimes the pose slips. For example, president Obama recently said: “and sometimes someone, usually mom, leaves the workplace to stay at home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result. That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.” The ‘we’ in the last sentence is the royal ‘we’.

You can’t retort: “who are you anyway?” Because the implicit reply is: “I’m the president”.

It’s a client server type deal, without even the refinement of much client side code, like a web page from 1995. You, one of the masses, post a form to a target agency, and the server gives you back a response, either as a letter in the mail or in the shape of armed men who show up outside your door.

Request, response, request, response. It doesn’t work? “Oh well if only Stalin knew”.

To the credit of the old men who authored and gradually amended the Constitution, they didn’t have much use for client server either. Even though none of them had taken computer science, they sort of got the idea anyway. They accepted the existence of privileged nodes as a necessary evil but hedged it about with all kinds of restrictions which Cass Sunstein calls “negative rights”.

The First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and so on are all ‘negative rights’. They are restrictions on the privileges of nodes. The founders did this because they understood that power corrupted. And absolute power corrupted absolutely. They knew that for as long as human nature remained what it was, then Hollywood actors, popular presidents, television dads and Canadian talk show hosts would one day, in the umbra formed by their power, do something they shouldn’t.

So it makes perfect sense “that this beloved, artsy, liberal, talented public radio star with the Flock of Seagulls haircut and the cool jeans allegedly has a weird thing going on involving a teddy bear and punching women in the face till their ears ring and forcing his cock into their mouths until they nearly vomit.” Just as it makes perfect sense that there are abusive clergy and corrupt judges. Privileged nodes.

What does not make sense is why we should want more of it. Most conservatives understand that we live in an imperfect world and are sadly resigned to living with the imperfections, mitigating them when they can, in preference to giving absolute power to some server to which they will relate as a client; dreaming of creating some omnipotent backend to which we can submit the ultimate form — for free healthcare, free housing, free everything — and get back the Ultimate Reponse — the Worker’s Paradise.

When the server is all powerful, you get back what you get back. Request, response, request, response. Request … waiting … request … waiting. Knock, knock. If there’s a knock at least it’s not a no-knock raid.

7 to 8 point polls favoring Republicans suddenly APPEAR out of nowhere. The CLOSE race narrative collapses for Democrats. The more accurate polls to preserve pollsters reputations are hidden in tweets, page 11 newspaper blurbs, and Fox news stories or completely ignored by the broadcast Obama networks by the very corporations who paid for the damned things. Imagine furious fighting over how much bad news to release before a bad election. Imagine bought pollsters trying to become un-bought to save their reputations and professional lives. What to do? How to do it? Too much truth might depress Democratic turnout or spur hateful Republicans to run up the score.

The preference cascade has run them over. Think Ebola. It is a pretty good symbol for this administration and its party. Viral stupidity. Six YEARS of hiding bad news, bad policy, bad everything has caught up. The media, pollsters, and gutless Democrats have ignored, hidden, or fantasized that nothing was happening that adversely affected the public or the money was worth the risk. Let’s fool the goobers is not anyway to run a political party for the long term. You can’t run away from voting 95+% of the time with Harry Reid and President “You have me”. They sure do have him. Hanging from their necks. Like chicken killing dogs they have a politically dead failed president chicken wired around their necks. Killing all the chickens looked like a winner in 2008. What to do? It is too late.

7 to 8 point polls favoring Republicans suddenly APPEAR out of nowhere. The CLOSE race narrative collapses for Democrats. The more accurate polls to preserve pollsters reputations are hidden in tweets, page 11 newspaper blurbs

______________________________
Mormaer It is a trap designed to lull the Republicans into a false sense of victory so that they will NOT go to vote. 👿

First, I think the positive polls coming from the left media may be to justify a win if there is rampant voter fraud as I suspect there will be. Otherwise how will they possibly explain a win? Remember when the exit polls showed Romney “winning” Ohio, PA and Florida until the “votes” were tallied.

Second, if we all agree that consumer spending drives our economy, then a not for profit health insurance option could lower insurance costs by 20% putting more money in consumers’ pockets than an increased minimum wage. Also, my community has seen our school taxes double as we have been invaded by illegal immigrants. I could save another $2000. per year if immigration were controlled. An increase in the minimum wage is only one factor. There are other things that could be done to more aggressively raise people’s incomes.

so here is what i’ve seen this morning……it would seem the real things we don’t see know what is coming on Tuesday

“Senior Republicans are completely confident, Senior Party Officials called McConnell at home on Sat Evening after running through the real internal national party polling projections at GOP national HQ and told McConnell he would be the next majority leader, McConnell’s reaction was a long pause.”

The polling they see is the ones they go through with a fine toothcomb…they know what the lowdown is.

I saw Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild on Fox the other day speaking for Hillary. What a wonderful supporter she has there. A real class act. Even when she raised her voice, it was poised. Those Fox commentators frequently have yelling matches but she was not provoked. She dismissed the Hillary’s business bloop they were trying to ask her about and spoke for her in a very effective manner. About who she is and where she is from. She spoke to what I know and like best about Hillary. One very interesting thing she said, in reference to the failed Bush and Obama Administrations, was the Bush was “too Hot”, Obama is “too cold” and Hillary is “just right”. What I would have said is that us is an incompetent Right Wingnut, Obama is an incompetent Left Wingnut and Hillary is a competent liberal with middle class roots.

In the New York Times the other day, anonymous aides to President Obama trashed Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Kerry was mocked mercilessly, with officials joking “that he is like the astronaut played by Sandra Bullock in the movie ‘Gravity,’ somersaulting through space, untethered to the White House.”

A week before that, The Times reported that, despite Obama’s public efforts to calm fears over Ebola, he was privately seething at health aides’ bungling. In a bid to separate him from the incompetence of his administration, the leakers claimed Obama was “visibly angry” and “demanded a more hands-on approach” from his team.

Then there was the story about Pentagon boss Hagel firing off a memo to national security chief Susan Rice that faulted America’s Syrian policy. Then there was a story about — oh, never mind, you get the picture.

(snip)
We are witnessing the total collapse of a bad idea. Obamaism, a quasi-socialist commitment to a more powerful government at home and an abdication of American leadership around the world, is being exposed as a historic calamity. It is fueling domestic fear and global disorder and may well lead to a world war.
If there is a smidgen of a silver lining, it is that the unraveling, complete with Obama’s shameless attempts to duck responsibility, is playing out on the eve of the midterm elections. Fortunately, voters seem ready to respond by giving Republicans control of both houses of congress.

I second that emotion, and not just because Obama is a failure. For all his narcissism, he didn’t make this mess alone.

He was aided and abetted by every Democrat in Congress. They marched in lockstep with his cockamamie policies, from ObamaCare to open borders. They protected corrupt leaders in numerous federal agencies, from the IRS to the Genera Services Administration. They stymied efforts to find the truth about Benghazi and the Fast and Furious gunrunning debacle.

They ceded their constitutional obligations and allowed Obama to crash the system of checks and balances. The vast majority stood silent while he gutted the military and abandoned our allies, including Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and courted Iran, the most menacing nation on earth.
With painfully few exceptions, Democrats put their loyalty to him above their duty to America.
And now they must be punished. All of them.

(snip)

Democrats needs to be removed from every possible federal office during the midterms as a punishment for the failed Obama presidency.

Normally, I am not a partisan advocate. I am a registered Democrat, though I vote as an independent.
Not this year. This is a national emergency and the only responsible action is to vote Republican for every federal office.
Not this year.

Sparing even a favorite Democrat or two could allow Obama to spin defeat as a minor loss.

Most worrisome, if Dems keep the Senate, the election will further entrench a corrupt government and further erode America’s strength and influence.
That is not a chance worth taking. Six years is enough. Collective punishment is the appropriate answer.
If there were any doubts the Obama Democrats cannot be trusted, look at their scurrilous campaigns. From coast to coast, their message is uniformly odious: Republicans are waging a “war on women” and they are racists.

That’s it. They can’t defend the legislation they passed, the economy they produced or the foreign policy they supported. Most don’t want to be seen with Obama, yet they take the money he raises and follow his lead in exploiting race and gender fault lines.

Scraping the bottom of the rancid barrel, they prove they will do anything to hold on to power. They cannot be allowed to succeed.
It is time for them to go.

In this article from The Hill, Dim Debbie claims the Dims will keep the senate. Why? Because of their “ground game in key states” and wait for it ….. Heavy weights like Bill and Hillary Clinton helping Dim candidates. Again, a Dim player ties the responsibility for the potential loss of the senate – not to Obama, but to the Clintons.

This article argues that although the DIMs won’t blame the Clintons if the Republicans gain control of the senate, the Republicans will see it as significant in their ongoing battle against Hillary, and will use it to their advantage.

I don’t doubt that the Republicans will target Hillary as the reason, if the Dims lose the Senate. We have all come to expect the worst of the Pubs when it comes to their fixation on the Clintons, especially Hillary. They have really never let up on her – at least the conservative media has not.

But – anyone who believes that Hillary won’t be publicly blamed loudly and repeatedly by the progressives and the anti-Clinton forces within the Dim Party is dead wrong. They will be and have been even more vicious than the Republicans when it come to Hillary.

The flurry of visits by the Clintons comes with some responsibility.
If Democrats do poorly on Election Day, Republicans will seek to put the blame on them.

But Democrats and many pundits believe that will be a hard argument to make — in large part because of Obama.
“The loss will be attributed primarily to Obama not the Clintons,” said Cal Jillson, a professor at Southern Methodist University.

“It’s a tall order to expect from a former president and secretary of state. I think there are candidates that are happy to have her and happy to have Bill at their sides. But it’s more that the party sees them as having a profile more acceptable to the electorate as Obama’s current profile,” he said.

Steve Elmendorf, a top Washington lobbyist who served as deputy campaign manager on Sen. John Kerry’s presidential campaign, said while both Clintons were extremely popular on the campaign trail, this election isn’t about either of them.

“Surrogates are valuable to raise money, get you some press, turn out the base, but are they ultimately what each of these races is about? No,” he said. “These races are so baked one way or the other. I don’t think any surrogate should be given credit or blame.”

Republicans, of course, don’t see it that way. They’re looking particularly at Hillary Clinton’s surrogacy this cycle to determine what the early stages of her potential candidacy could look like.

We are witnessing the total collapse of a bad idea. Obamaism, a quasi-socialist commitment to a more powerful government at home and an abdication of American leadership around the world, is being exposed as a historic calamity. It is fueling domestic fear and global disorder and may well lead to a world war.
If there is a smidgen of a silver lining, it is that the unraveling, complete with Obama’s shameless attempts to duck responsibility, is playing out on the eve of the midterm elections. Fortunately, voters seem ready to respond by giving Republicans control of both houses of congress.

I second that emotion, and not just because Obama is a failure. For all his narcissism, he didn’t make this mess alone.

He was aided and abetted by every Democrat in Congress. They marched in lockstep with his cockamamie policies, from ObamaCare to open borders. They protected corrupt leaders in numerous federal agencies, from the IRS to the Genera Services Administration. They stymied efforts to find the truth about Benghazi and the Fast and Furious gunrunning debacle.

They ceded their constitutional obligations and allowed Obama to crash the system of checks and balances. The vast majority stood silent while he gutted the military and abandoned our allies, including Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and courted Iran, the most menacing nation on earth.
With painfully few exceptions, Democrats put their loyalty to him above their duty to America.
And now they must be punished. All of them.
—————
Throw in big media too.

They lead the American People into this box canyon where they could be dry gulched by the snarling beasts of the left.

The knew exactly what they were doing, and they did it with pure malice aforethought.

These races are so baked one way or the other. I don’t think any surrogate should be given credit or blame.”
———————–
I agree.

These elections were baked in during the past 30 days by that celebrity part time chef and full time diva Barack Hussein Obama who prepares his dazzling culinary masterpieces with an ounce a strychnine and a pound of cocaine which captivate the mind and the pallet of his audience. One guest to another: if my friend could see me now . . second guest: gwenneth paltrow was so right, my heart gets stuck in my throat just looking at him . . . third guest: anna wintrow was also right, oh Michelle is so dazzling and so gracious–she even tolerates white people if they are loaded like we are . . . fourth guest: what is that over there. . . a receiving line? fifth guest: oh, perish the thought. Those are the talking heads of big media lined up to give Obama his daily blow job. Sixth guest: (a party crasher): I have seen enough! Off with their heads!!!

Forgive me, but I am a sucker for a happy ending. Frank Capra would have liked this one.

That said, while it is quite true that sophisticates like this guy understand who baked this shit cake, you cannot assume that leftists in general, and the defenders of Obama will admit that this is his fault. Simply put, you cannot dance with the devil. They are making the case that she is a corporate shill, and there is no doubt in my mind that they will try to blame her for this loss, and obviously so will the Republicans, when they no longer have Obama to blame. The pertinent question, then, is what will the party at large, which is obsessed with and defined by race come to believe–that she tried to save Obama, whom by their lights was a messiah who did not really need to be saved, or will they blame her and Bill and say they are no longer relevant?

totally disgusted
November 2, 2014 at 11:30 am
————–
Yea. Between that prick and Obama it will be dueling banjos on amnesty. That is why I wanted him gone. If he did go, it would throw the RINO leadership in the senate into disarray, and the senior senator from Texas, who is no prize, might be slightly more deferential to the will of the people than McConnell, who along with his wife Elaine, are gaudy garish fixtures in the whore house that is Washington. The difference between my view of Washington and the view of your typical progressive is I want its power diminished, whereas the secret desire of every progressive is not to diminish that centralization of power, but to expand it, provided he or she can be a part of it.

I went to the local Apple computer store last night to update the software on my I-Phone. The store was crowded with people, like Time Square New Years Eve, and the average age was about 23. Toddlers were fixate over computers, nice young people we used to call geeks were helping those who like me needed help and as I took it all in, I thought of that old song by Kurt Weill sung by his wife Lotte Leyman and others: I am a stranger here myself.

Then I thought about the wisdom of Richard Roderiguez which fails to blow me away almost never. He spoke about the progressive model of government, where our betters hand down their version of the truth, we can file a written protest, they respond, and after that we are just shit out of luck, because they know better. Then, if we continue to persist, they lose our file, and if we complain about that we get a knock at the door and they read us our rights.

In the brave new world we enter, where the virtual world is more important than the real world (a point which the former French President accused Obama of–we live in a real world not a virtual one), where you can order anything you want–anything over the internet, you can live your whole life in that world and be susceptible to its influence. Soros understands this, and has mentioned it as a area of opportunity for the left. All I can say is, when people are conditioned in this manner, it is not hard to see how they might ignore the infringement on liberty it entails for the sake of convenience and habit. In that case, the obscene political model of the left becomes alas politically viable.

Nate Cohn, writing in the New York Times, did his best to put some lipstick on a pig yesterday by suggesting that the impending Republican victory (which he has been busily trying to suggest will not happen) isn’t really bad news for Democrats at all. Cohn’s article is fairly typical of the completely evidence-free wishful thinking I recall our side engaging in during the latter stages of 2006 and indicates some hope that the Democrats intend to learn nothing from their coming chastisement at the hands of the voters. Cohn’s thesis is as follows:

But perhaps more important to the party’s long-term prospects than Tuesday’s results is what unfolds in the presidential battleground states. If the night ends with tight races in Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado and Georgia, as the polls suggest, then the results will not be as great for Republicans as many analysts will surely proclaim.

Even if the Republicans win these states, which would all but ensure Senate control, it will probably be mostly because of low midterm turnout among Democratic-leaning young and nonwhite voters. The implication would be that Republican Senate candidates did not win many voters who supported President Obama in 2012. And it would suggest that Republicans have made little progress in attracting voters they would need to take back the White House.

It’s an interesting point by Cohn, but if you read the article, you’ll notice something important – Cohn cites literally no polling evidence to back his hypothesis that the GOP has failed to make inroads in typically Democratic constituencies. The only evidence he even references is that the share of the white vote in a number of key states will continue to dwindle as years go on. This much has been known for years. But with respect to the actual point of his article – that the GOP is just turning out the white male vote while not persuading any other demographic, Cohn cites no polls to verify his point.

There’s a very simple reason for that fact: the polling evidence that exists completely disproves Cohn’s thesis.

For instance, no group was more vital to the Democrats’ victories in 2012 than women. Democrats recognized this fact heading in to 2014; however, they approached the female vote with all the finesse of Mike Tyson on a coke binge, suggesting that women are interested in nothing but free birth control, which has led poll after poll to indicate that the gender gap has either shrunk or completely disappeared in battleground states. No candidate has been more emblematic of this approach than Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO)0% – who now actually trails among women in Colorado.

Another group that the Obama coalition has depended on for a boost is young people. Voters aged 18 through 29 voted for Obama by a 34 point margin in 2008 and a 23 point margin in 2012. Polling last week indicated that this same group favored a Republican-controlled Congress 51-47. If this polling trend continues, the Democrats stand to permanently lose an entire generation that was poised to take the place of the generation that came of age in the 60s and has stood as a bulwark of Democrat power since.

Another group the Democrats rode to victory in 2008 and 2012 were Hispanics, who voted for Obama over Romney by an astonishing 71-27 margin. A WaPo poll taken last week showed that Hispanics were now mostly indifferent to the fate of Democrats in Congress, as 50% of them said it did not matter if Republicans took control of Congress. More troublingly, of those Hispanics who thought it did matter, 30% said they thought it would be a good thing if Republicans took control of Congress, whereas only 15% said they thought it would be a bad thing. Hispanic anger at broken Democrat promises appears to be real – many advocacy groups have been openly declaring war on the Democrats all year, In Georgia, one of the states highlighted by Cohn where the dwindling white vote is supposed to hurt the GOP in upcoming elections, actual polling shows that Hispanic voters prefer Purdue and Deal. Part of the reason for Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO)0%‘s implosion is his weakening strength among Latino voters.

It is all well and good for despondent Democrats to say that Republicans are only poised for victory due to decreased turnout and to suggest that things will be different in 2016 and beyond as the white male vote continues to shrink. Unfortunately for the cheerleaders who are responsible for maintaining Democrat morale, actual evidence suggest that Democrats are losing their hold on women, young voters, and Hispanics – three groups that are absolutely necessary for their electoral success long term. If these trends continue, it’s not the GOP that is in for long-term trouble.

Rick Moran is not one of my favorite people–RINO hour of power, Chicago,

But when it comes to political projections, he tends to be fairly accurate:
———————-

The well respected Des Moines Register poll published today gives GOP state Senator Joni Ernst a solid 7 point lead over her Democratic opponent, Rep. Bruce Braley.

Ernst has enjoyed a small lead in 7 out of the last 9 polls , so the fact that she’s ahead is not surprising. But Ernst’s margin may raise questions about whether the poll is an outlier or not.

Be that as it may, Ernst is almost certainly ahead. The poll found Braley trailing her by 3 points in his own congressional district. Voters also saw Ernst with more ability to work across the aisle with Democrats in Congress.

Then there’s this little tidbit:

3. Although Ernst could become the first woman Iowa sends to Congress, few of her supporters (just 5 percent) say that’s one of the strongest reasons to vote for her. In contrast, about a quarter (24 percent) of Braley voters say it’s one of the strongest reasons to vote for Ernst — they’re just not going to do so.

GOP voters are apparently less likely to indulge in identity politics than Democrats.

The poll is not only good news for Ernst, it’s horrible news for Harry Reid, who said yesterday that if the GOP wins Iowa, they will take the Senate.

The Nevada Democrat said if Braley wins in Iowa, Democrats will do “just fine.” And if they lose? Say hello to Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Reid said in a conference call Saturday with the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.

“Joni Ernst would mean — coming to the United States Senate — that Mitch McConnell would be leader of the United States Senate, who agrees with her on everything. Think of what would mean for our country,” Reid said of Ernst, repeatedly attacking her positions against raising the federal minimum wage to $10.10 an hour.

Caitlin Conant, a spokeswoman for Ernst, replied: “Reid says Democrats will be ‘just fine’ if Braley wins, but Iowa can do better. Reid is only backing Braley because he supports Obama’s agenda of higher taxes, more debt and Obamacare.”

The Hawkeye State is being viewed increasingly as a national bellwether in the battle for the Senate, and Ernst has maintained a narrow but stubborn edge in recent polling. Reid said he was confident that Democrats could pull out tight races in New Hampshire and North Carolina but left Iowa as the “critical” question mark in Democrats’ hopes.

In typical fashion, Reid laid into Ernst and tied her to the billionaire Koch brothers. He laid out Democrats’ defense of Braley as essential to “protecting the people of America from these insidious groups,” then attacked Ernst for skipping out on an editorial board meeting with the Des Moines Register, which endorsed Braley.

Harry would be smart to get a head start on packing up his belongings and measuring the drapes in the minority leader’s office.

In another good sign for Republicans, a new NBC-Marist poll shows Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell lengthening his lead to 9 points over Alison Lundergan Grimes in Kentucky. And in Georgia, David Perdue has jumped out to a 4 point lead over Michelle Nunn. But neither candidate has yet to crack 50% and with Libertarian Amanda Swafford pulling 3%, it’s entirely possible this race is headed for a January 6 runoff next year.

In head-to-head matchups pitting Landrieu against either GOP candidate, both Cassidy and Maness receive 50 percent support, while Landrieu performs almost identically against either Republican – at 45 and 46 percent, respectively.

Partly because he’s less well known in the state, Cassidy enjoys a better favorable rating (45 percent favorable/ 41 percent unfavorable) than Landrieu (44 percent favorable / 50 percent unfavorable). Landrieu was first elected in 1996 and has survived two competitive elections since.

Republicans can afford to lose either Georgia or Kansas, where incumbent GOP Senator Pat Roberts is tied with Democrat/independent Greg Orman. Losing them both would put them in the awkward position of probably having to win at least one of the close races they currently trail in — North Carolina, New Hampshire, or Alaska.

Wbboei, as I have been posting for a couple of weeks I felt the dems would resort to
terrifying minorities by flooding the air waves and phone lines with the worst kind of
racial politics we have ever seen. It seems to be working based on the current virtual tie in what 2 weeks ago, were 3-4% republican leads in the crucial races.
My current projections have dems keeping senate by two (2), what are your numbers and where do the republicans pick up,the seats necessary to take he senate? Am I missing something? Even here in S,Florida a turncoat republican now Obama loving dem, Crist looks like he will narrowly defeat Scott ( also a creep) for Governor.

May-be this new fangled get out to vote machine perfected by Messiah Obama, dipped in the Holy Waters of Lourdes, and blessed by Kingfisher big media is everything it is cracked up to and will sell Popsicles to Eskimos in winter–not just any winter, but the winter of our discontent with this fuckingobama.

Then again, maybe not.

There are economic and career motives for people like Axelgrease to portray it in such terms, while ignoring other factors.

Until the claim is proven in 2014 against the backdrop of a failed presidency, it is wiser to heed the words of Kipling, and keep your powder dry:

‘This new ship here is fitted according to the reported increase of knowledge among mankind. Namely, she is cumbered end to end with bells and trumpets and clocks. And wires, it has been told to me, can call voices out of the air or the waters to con the ship while her crew sleep. But sleep thou lightly. It has not yet been told to me that the Sea has ceased to be the Sea.’

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria (AP) — With a malevolent laugh, the leader of Nigeria’s Islamic extremists tells the world that more than 200 kidnapped schoolgirls have all been converted to Islam and married off, dashing hopes for their freedom.

Years ago NYT had a staff writer who was a bona fide conservative. His name was Bill Saphire. Prior thereto he was a speechwriter for Nixon/Agnew. He was the author of such timeless characterizations as the nattering nabobs of negativity. After he left the scene they put that nerd David Brooks in that conservative slot. Everyone who reads his column takes pains to point out that he is not really a conservative and leaves it at that. They fail to understand why he was chosen.

Brooks is not just a non conservative. He is a full blown progressive masquerading as a conservative. They market him as a highly intelligent conservative (as opposed to someone from the despised tea party who would scare the horses). His role is to be the other half of the Potemkin Village they have constructed, where intelligent conservatives and intelligent liberals jointly embrace progressive doctrine and messiah obama. In sum, Brooks is a foil, a phony and a poseur.